Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 9 Jun 1992

Vol. 420 No. 9

Private Members' Business. - North-South Joint Operational Programme.

Mr. J. Bruton

I move:

That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to enter into immediate discussions with the relevant Northern Ireland authorities to agree on the preparation of a joint operational programme for the entire island of Ireland, for submission to the European Community to avail of the EC Structural Funds for the period 1993-1997, with a view to promoting much more intensive trade between both parts of the island.

I am proposing something that is completely new: instead of the administration in the South drawing up a scheme and presenting it to Brussels and the authorities in London drawing up a separate scheme for Northern Ireland and Britain and presenting it in Brussels, I believe we should look at the whole island of Ireland as one unit, economically speaking, and draw up a joint operational programme for both parts of the island.

This is a radical approach and has never been tried before, but people in Northern Ireland are receptive to the idea. I have had the opportunity during the past two weeks of visiting Northern Ireland and having discussions with representatives of the Confederation of British Industry in Northern Ireland, the Ulster Farmers' Union, the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and with community leaders. I met people from every religious persuasion and none, but they were all agreed that, as long as there is no hidden agenda and no political strings attached, co-operation on economic development projects will be extremely welcome in Northern Ireland.

I believe that rather than simply taking the time-worn path of public servants — the pursuit of the familiar, and following precedent, which is ingrained in all those who work in the public service all over the world — we should do something very different. However, I am greatly disappointed by the Government's response to my proposal. The Government amendment rejects the idea of a joint operational programme and asks us to approve continuing the policies that have been pursued in the past. Of course, it stresses the strong co-operative approach; indeed we know there is and always has been a strong co-operative approach once the priorities of the administration on this side of the Border have been satisfied. Following the past pattern of activity will not solve the problem. The fact is we are spending vast sums of money developing markets for our produce in Japan, Britain, France, and to penetrate these markets our people have to learn other languages and other legal systems in order to sell their goods, while ignoring the market on our doorstep in the North.

It has been calculated that cross-Border trade from North to South amounted to £500 million last year and exports from South to North amounted to £800 million. However, manufacturers in the Republic only sell one-quarter as much in Northern Ireland in proportion to the size of the economy as they sell in the Republic. Likewise, Northern manufacturers sell only one-third as much to the South proportionate to the size of the population as they sell in their own markets. In other words, we are not selling to each other what would be normal for economies on the same island and people who are essentially living in the same economic space. To penetrate distant markets we have to learn other languages, Japanese, Italian and French. Learning languages is something to be encouraged — indeed the only school teaching Russian at present is the Methodist College in Belfast but I hope to see more languages on offer in our schools in the future. The fact of the matter is that we are not taking advantage of the opportunities on our doorstep.

Dr. George Quigley, the chairman of the Ulster Bank, is very prominent in the Confederation of British Industry in Northern Ireland. He suggests that we should try to create an island economy and further that we develop a Belfast-Dublin economic corridor. In Massachusetts, for example, there has been particularly intensive economic development along a transport network, route 66, because a certain synergy developed in that particular zone. Likewise in the Po valley in northern Italy, competing firms, by co-operating with each other, enjoyed within a very short time massive economic growth after the last war.

Regardless of whether there is any agreement in the Stormont talks that are taking place at present, we have the opportunity now to create a Belfast-Dublin economic corridor around which we can develop tremendous job opportunities. Obviously if jobs are to be generated in the economic corridor it is a basic essential to have a proper road network between Belfast and Dublin. That is not the case at present. There is no by-pass at Balbriggan or Julianstown; recently Swords got a by-pass, but there is no by-pass in Drogheda and traffic has to travel very slowly from North to South. We could avail of moneys from the European Community to carry out this work but that requires a decision. Not so long ago the proposed by-pass for Dundalk was delayed because the authorities North and South could not agree where the by-pass should be built. The Southern authorities wanted the by-pass to be located on the side of town which involves the lowest cost to the Republic while the Northern authorities want it located where it would involve the lowest cost for them. Both fought about it, hoping that the other Government would have to pay more.

The type of mentality that would hold up a development that is so important in terms of building a one island economy, all for the sake of saving a few pounds, is what I would like to see eradicated by this debate. We should start looking at the economies on this island as one economy and recognise that if jobs can be created on the other side of the Border, that also creates wealth on this side of the Border. Once we have a Single European Market — which we will have if the Irish people vote "Yes" in the referendum on the Maastricht Treaty, then economic activity that is generated in Newry can have the sub supply, the components, produced in Dundalk or vice versa. In a Single European Market if industry is attracted to Derry, the people from Buncrana will be encouraged to go to work there. That is the idea of a Single European Market and a single island economy in Ireland. The Maastricht Treaty gives us the opportunity to create a single economy on this island and to do so without any hidden agenda.

It is not a question of this arising because, say, traditional Catholic nationalism has got the better of traditional Protestant unionism or, alternatively, that the Unionist view has got the better of the Nationalist view and we have decided to re-enter the Commonwealth or some economic zone with Britain. That issue is off the agenda. Questions as to whether it was one side's view of the world or the other side's view of the world which would reign supreme in an integrated area are no longer at issue because we have changed the concept of the problem; we are looking at it in the much wider scale of a European agreement which has been negotiated for an area much larger than the islands of either Ireland or Britain. We have an opportunity within that wider context of building a single island economy on this island.

It has been estimated by the Confederation of Irish Industry that up to 75,000 extra jobs could be created on this island as a whole if we were able to achieve the level of trade between North and South which would be normal as between two parts of an island so close together. If we could, so to speak, remove the economic border which still exists in our minds more than in reality we have the potential to create all those jobs. I want to give an example. A hospital which cannot identify a supplier within "the State" from whom it can get certain equipment should obviously look next at Northern Ireland to see if the equipment can be obtained on the island of Ireland.

I wish to refer to the very odd situation whereby the guidebook on the Giant's Causeway is printed in London. If there is no printer in Northern Ireland who can print this guidebook to the standard required then the obvious and most cost-effective place to get the printing done is on this side of the Border. This is a sensible approach regardless of politics — people save money by buying from suppliers close to them rather than buying from suppliers who are an airline journey away. If a person has difficulties with a product, he is able to ask a supplier to visit his plant to see how it is being used if he is just down the road. This is not the case if the goods are bought in Britain, France or further afield.

We need to change the way we look at the economic choices we have to make when purchasing goods. The northern part of this island is the first place we should look to make those purchases if we cannot get the goods nearer home. I suggest that there should be an agreement between the Government purchasing service in Northern Ireland and the Department of Finance in the Republic, in liaison with the Irish Trade Board, to establish an easy access purchasing and tenders register for the entire public sector on the island of Ireland whereby people in Northern Ireland would have easy access on computer to any tenders advertised for the purchase of goods or services on this side of the Border and vice versa. I believe there is a procedure in the Department of Finance for accrediting certain public sector suppliers of particular goods and services, approved suppliers of particular goods. Instead of the Government purchasing service in Northern Ireland retaining one list of approved suppliers in Northern Ireland for the products we buy and our Department of Finance maintaining an entirely separate list of suppliers on the other side of the Border we should have one list of approved suppliers for the entire island of Ireland. This would give wider choice, more competition and better quality. An electronic catalogue should be established for all the goods which are likely to be made available for purchase from the public sector on the island.

Obviously, we cannot create an economic corridor unless we have good transport links. We should demand that by 1997 there will be a dual carriageway all the way from Dublin to Belfast. This should be an agreed objective between North and South. We should also agree that the rail link between North and South should be upgraded so that trains can travel at a much greater speed than they travel at present. There should be a common united demand by the peace loving people on both sides of the Border to the Provisional IRA to stop their activities which are interfering with rail links between North and South.

It is ridiculous to think that a criminal gang who claim to be interested in a united Ireland — I emphasise the word "claim"— should spend their time blowing up a link between the two parts of the island. It shows the ultimate perversity and barrenness of their thinking that this is one of the publicity stunts they think of. I do not believe this organisation will listen to rational argument or that they are concerned with rational argument. This organisation are akin to the Mafia and they will not change their policies as a result of anything said in this House. We have to make sure that this organisation are stopped from doing what they are doing.

There should be a single ports policy for the island of Ireland. It probably makes sense for Dublin and Larne to be ports for the export of goods from this island to Britain. Rather than trying to go in the opposite direction we should encourage and support people to use the port at Larne. Equally, we should accept that the port at Waterford should be the port for the entire island of Ireland for direct linkage to Europe. There should be an investment policy supported by the Governments both North and South to develop Waterford port as the European sea bridge for the entire island. Dr. Tony Ryan recently suggested that there should be a subsidised air bridge between Ireland and Europe, perhaps located at Shannon, where there would be quick delivery of goods from the island of Ireland to the Continent. This is something in which the Northern Ireland authorities would also have an interest as a direct route from the island of Ireland via, say, Shannon, to the Continent would be quicker for Northern businesses than routing through London. We should seek to develop such a route as a common endeavour between the two parts of this island.

When I was in Northern Ireland I had the opportunity of having discussions with the Ulster Farmers' Union. I can assure the House that those discussions were very familiar to me from my discussions with the IFA — the accents were almost the same and the problems were certainly the same. I was extremely surprised to note that no common research into agricultural problems is being carried out between the authorities north and south of the Border. Of course, they send one another their learned papers when the results are finalised. These two administrations are trying to help farmers to survive in difficult circumstances in almost precisely the same climate on the same island with the same geographic distance from sources of supply and the same systems of agriculture. Yet no joint research is being carried out between the research station in, say, Hillsboro and the research station in Grange or the research station in Hillsboro and the research station in Moor Park. Complete partitionism rules in the Irish public service mind as far as agricultural research and almost every other activity is concerned.

We have an attitude of looking at our State and not looking at the possibility which exists of doing something together with the people on the other side of the Border. The same applies so far as FÁS are concerned. How many Northern Ireland trainees are there in FÁS centres? There are FÁS centres and regional colleges dotted along the Border. How many Northern Ireland students are there in the FÁS centres and regional technical colleges in Dundalk, Letterkenny and other centres along the Border? I venture to say that there are virtually none.

Mr. McGahon

They are all in the labour exchanges.

Mr. J. Bruton

Yet we are putting huge sums of money, much of it supplied from outside this jurisdiction, into the development of FÁS centres on the island of Ireland. We could produce a much better range of courses, more professional and successful courses if we pooled our efforts rather than continuing to operate separate administrations on partitionist lines.

We should have a common environmental policy. One of the priorities of the Cohesion Fund will be to clean up the environment. There is no doubt that we on this side of the Border are pumping untreated sewage into the seas around us. It is not solely people in territory where the Union Jack flies who are responsible for the putrefication of the Irish Sea. Untreated sewage is being pumped into the Boyne at Mornington and into the Irish Sea by people on this side of the Border. There should be a common environmental policy for the island of Ireland because air pollution and water pollution respect no borders. That should be a high priority for us.

We should have joint missions overseas to sell Ireland as an investment and tourist location. I know that Bord Fáilte and the IDA, with whom I had contact as Minister, did not want to touch their Northern Ireland counterparts with a barge pole. They were afraid that if they did not sell the Republic entirely separate from Northern Ireland they would lose investment. Huge sums of money were spent going abroad telling people in America that we are different, that if they invest in the Republic they are not investing in the North, that that is a different place. Yet our politicians subsequently say it is the same. They tell these people they want them to take an interest in this island. The messages being sent out by those concerned with attracting tourism and investment to the Republic are contradictory to the messages being sold, very often by the same people, that the problems on the whole island are inter-related. We should take our courage in our hands and agree to joint trade missions overseas with the Northern Ireland Development Board. We should at least try it once or twice to see if it works.

Economic co-operation on its own will not solve all the problems of Ireland. In the past ten years in some respects matters have got worse. I know of a person who was away from Belfast for ten years and when he returned to the city recently he was shocked at the extent to which there had been a radical reduction in the number of people living in mixed areas. Protestants are almost exclusively, unless they are from the upper middle class, living in areas where their only neighbours are Protestants, and the same applies to Catholics. There are 17 or 18 year olds in Northern Ireland who have never had a conversation of more than five minutes with somebody of a different religion. As long as the separation of the two communities in Northern Ireland continues, it will be very difficult for political settlements, however well constructed, to succeed. Unless people at ground level have a sense of identity and a sense of common citizenship with their neighbours, the activities of politicians at a higher level will be simply theoretical treaties between groups with divergent interests.

That is one reason the Roman Catholic Church should change its view as regards integrated education. It would make much sense in the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland if there was greater support for integrated education. I know there are strong values in denominational education and, in normal circumstances, I would not advocate such a policy change, but when there is effectively no opportunity for the young members of the two communities to meet because they play different codes of football, go to different schools and live in different neighbourhoods, how will we break that logjam other than by educating them together? I do not believe that by educating these children together we will remove all prejudices, nor do I believe that the separate education they now receive is prejudiced. Denominational education within its limitations does as much as is humanly possible to promote mutual understanding. Having visited two denominational schools in Northern Ireland in the last few weeks I know that is the case. However, it is not the same as sharing the same classroom or the same playground with someone of a different religion or as having a best school friend who is of a different religion. No matter how much theoretical mutual understanding is taught there is no substitute for direct human contact. There is a need for people other than politicians to give a lead if that position is to be changed.

I propose this motion not because I have any political agenda in terms of a political settlement on this island or between this island and a neighbouring island. The finding of a solution to this problem has been bedevilled by people in this House having an agenda to promote. All I ask is that we start working together for our mutual profit in a single economy on this island of Ireland. There is profit to be made for all of us, but the lead has to come from the Irish Government, and it has to come in the next two to three months. The last major tranche of Structural Funds Ireland will receive from the European Community will come in the years 1993-97. After 1997 the priority for European Structural Funds will not be Ireland, Portugal or Spain but Eastern Europe. The problems in Eastern Europe are so acute that by that time, following enlargement of the Community, Eastern Europe will have a higher priority for Structural Funds.

In the next few months we will have a last chance in this regard, and we can take that chance in two ways. We can go to Brussels with our own programme, with the odd consultation, for show, with the people in the North and they can go on a Westminster delegation with their programme, with the odd chat, for show, with people on this side of the Border. Alternatively, the Irish Government can decide in the next few months, instead of going separately to Brussels, to seek to put together a single operational programme for the whole island, with the investments being made on this side of the Border with European funds interlocking with and complementing the investments being made on the other side of the Border. That decision can be made by an Irish Cabinet in Government Buildings next week regardless of whether the talks proceeding under Sir Patrick Mayhew are a success.

We can decide to approach the Northern Ireland authorities with a view to agreeing to such a joint programme, as is proposed in the Fine Gael motion. The Government in their amendment more or less congratulate themselves on what they have done while proposing no change in existing procedures. In the course of this debate I hope the Government will change their minds and will agree that a joint operational programme for the whole island would make sense.

As I have ten minutes left and there are other Members who are interested in contribution, I would like if the party spokesman on Border areas, Deputy McGahon was allowed to speak.

Mr. McGahon

I thank Deputy John Bruton for giving me the opportunity to say a few words on this subject which has been dear to my heart since I came in here ten years ago. I welcome Deputy Bruton aboard the platform of seeking help for the Border region. The Deputy has sought help very forcibly tonight. Some of the practical measures Deputy Bruton has enumerated underline his capacity to make a contribution to cross-Border co-operation. Deputy Bruton has recently demonstrated his realistic approach in his excellent policy on job creation, which is practical rather than bureaucratic.

The plight of the Border region has been well documented here over the last ten years. I charge all political parties with a certain amount of indifference to this problem. There has been a tendency to throw one's hands up in the air and say that while the Border troubles exist there is no effective mechanism for progress in the Border areas. My native town, the biggest in Ireland, has withered economically over the last 23 years in the shadow of the tragedy of the North of Ireland and the holocaust it has turned into. The Border area has been literally sent to hell or to Connacht with no recognition of the terrible tale of destruction in manufacturing jobs in the Border region. Dundalk has double the national average unemployment. That did not materialise over the last two or three years. It developed at the start of the Ulster troubles in 1968. Despite that and the signs that were there, no Irish Government recognised the problem because there was a political consensus that if we defined that area as the disaster area it was, other areas would claim parity. Meanwhile my area was left to almost obliteration. The unemployment figures reveal the lack of attention that was paid by all Governments in the last 23 years.

I welcome Deputy Bruton's initiative in recently travelling to the North and looking at the practical ways in which we can have a hands across the Border relationship with the people in that area. The partition of Ireland is unsolvable. It is like a man and a wife who cannot live together. In the 70 years in which we have been masters of our own destiny, a partitionist mentality has developed not in the North, but in the South. We have to live in this State. There are two states on this island. The practical way to deal with it is in economic co-operation. If the IRA, the most evil terrorist grouping in the world, have the sense to stop their campaign of slaughter, perhaps in many years to come some type of harmony can result in the unification of this country. It will not come in my time nor in the lifetime of anybody on this island. That is why we must recognise that the difficulties for the moment are insurmountable but that economically we have a lot to gain by working together.

As Deputy Bruton said, the problems of the farmer in Derry and in Kerry are similar. In agricultural development we could work together to make meaningful progress. Recently I was in Copenhagen on a Committee of Public Accounts deputation looking at the methods by which they eradicated bovine TB. That is the first country in Europe to achieve 100 per cent freedom from that disease. Yet here it has cost us nearly £2 billion and we are not working with our opposite numbers in the North who have to a large extent eliminated that scourge. There should be joint research in agricultural development, as Deputy Bruton suggested.

The main development that would benefit my area would be the joint promotion abroad of the Mountains of Mourne region and the Cooley Peninsula. The Mountains of Mourne and the Cooley Peninsula have more in common than the Cooley Peninsula and the mountains of Kerry. It is one region. If a bridge was built over the narrow water with EC funding, it would be a tremendous joint development which would probably be benignly received in Brussels. That is a practical measure which has long been mooted in the County Louth region. Would the Minister bear that in mind, because it is a natural hinterland, one which affords potential tourists delightful scenery on a par with anything in the South of Ireland?

Deputy Bruton touched on the question of the necessity to upgrade the Dublin-Belfast railway line. Only today I travelled on it and, like many others, I was held up for half-an-hour due to a bomb scare in the Border region. For a group of people who claim to want to unite this country, that is a partitionist act and shows them for the arch-hypocrites they are. They want to sever a link that has been there for 100 years, to prevent the 600,000 people who use the link every year from using it. That link brings many tourists, business people and students to Queen's University and to centres in Dublin. That organisation are preventing that happening. They are also putting men out of work. How they can claim to be acting in the true Republican fashion defies me, but then, everything about that blood-lust group staggers me.

The IRA have cemented the partition of Ireland with their excesses over the last 23 years. Over 4,000 people have been lowered into their graves. It is a weakness in a democracy that it allows terrorism to flourish to the extent that it does on this island. The awful tragedy of Beirut has now subsided but the problems go on in Belfast and in Border areas. They impinge directly on my town and on our State. Dundalk has borne the brunt of the Ulster troubles on behalf of mother Ireland but no compensatory measures have been implemented. The British Exchequer has pumped unbelievable amounts of money into the towns on the other side of the Border. They have got swimming pools, leisure centres and libraries. The money has been pumped in as compensation, but nothing has been given to the Border towns on our side. It is time for the authorities in the North and here to get together in a meaningful way, rather than having the occasional cup of coffee in the Carrickdale Hotel and an afternoon out for some civil servants and a few politicians. They should get together and devise a cohesive strategy designed to benefit the entire island. I urge the Minister to recognise the plight of the Border area and the desirability of a joint approach to Ireland's problems.

Minister of State at the Department of Industry and Commerce (Mrs. O'Rourke)

I wish to share my time with the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that satisfactory? Agreed.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"Dáil Éireann supports the Government's policy of incorporating a strong co-operative approach with the Northern Ireland Authorities into its planning process for the post-1993 EC Structural Funds, both in the preparation of the respective Development Plans to be submitted to the EC Commission by the Authorities North and South and in the preparation of a new INTERREG Programme to succeed the existing Joint Programme, with the overall aim of encouraging greater co-operation in the economic development of the whole island of Ireland including the promotion of more intensive trade between both parts."

I should like to take up some of the points already made and to indicate some of the developments which are already in train, as evidenced in the book entitled Ireland in Europe — A Shared Challenge, which was launched recently. I strongly refute the idea that we are ignoring cross-Border trade. Deputy Bruton referred to the purchase of expensive medical equipment which could be used in a cross-Border way. During the short period in which I was Minister for Health I formally agreed with my Northern Ireland counterpart for the purchase of equipment costing over £300,000 which was to be used on a North-South basis. I was very pleased to be part of this undertaking, the first of its type. It was a very practical expression of co-operation. The public sector data base which Deputy Bruton referred to is on its way. Joint research and development within the agricultural sector is also detailed in the book. Admittedly it is of a modest nature but it has been in train for a number of years on a very successful basis.

Deputy McGahon spoke with great passion and obvious conviction. He talked about the Cooley Peninsula. There is a connection between Cooley Distilleries and Kilbeggan Distilleries. They are interacting in a positive way. I had the honour some years ago of launching that project and the first tasting is to take place in the middle of July. What the whiskey will be called I do not know but it is the product of Cooley and Kilbeggan.

Mr. Currie

Make sure it will be on 12 July.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I am sure it will be very potent. There are programmes already in place between the IDA and the small business firms in Northern Ireland. The Mosaic data base lists Irish manufacturers in both parts of the island. Mosaic is intended to encourage Irish industrial and trade buyers to increase levels of local sourcing. Bord Tráchtála are now about the business of producing a public purchasing data base which will be capable of being established on an all-Ireland basis. A joint North-South public purchasing guide by Bord Tráchtála and the Northern Ireland Government Purchasing Service has also been produced.

Of course there is much more to be done but I would be failing in my duty if I did not put on record the amount of joint research and co-operation which is already going on. A number of joint agricultural research projects are already under way between Queen's University and Johnstown Castle. The Teagasc scheme of research grants to universities extends to Queen's University and the University of Ulster. I do not wish to be "one up" on anybody but it is correct that these facts be laid before the House lest people will think there is nothing happening in the areas of education, agricultural research, joint co-operation in trade and marketing and co-operation between chambers of commerce, North and South. Much has already been achieved. It started in the mid-eighties but there has been a great acceleration in the past few years.

I would mention en passant but with great emphasis that I share Deputy Bruton's ideas on integrated education. In my years in the Department of Education I stressed the great urgency of it. I hope that message will go out from us jointly tonight.

I welcome the opportunity as Minister for Trade and Marketing to have a discussion in the House on this important question. The Government consider it desirable to look at the question of cross-Border co-operation in the broader context of the overall Community support framework and the preparation of the next development plan for submission to the EC.

As part of the planning process already underway projects and programmes with a cross-Border aspect are being identified with a view to including a strong cross-Border element in the National Development Plan which will be submitted to the EC Commission as part of the procedure involved in agreeing the Structural Funds in the period 1994 to 1997.

In addition, I would like to point to the existing joint INTERREG programme under one of the Community Initiatives, though limited to the Border areas. In discussing the INTERREG programme, I should make the distinction that, whereas Community support frameworks are based on national development plans, the INTERREG programme is a Community Initiative, developed by the Commission to promote the implementation of certain Community policies at regional level.

In Ireland the areas eligible for assistance under INTERREG are the whole of Northern Ireland, apart from the city of Belfast, and Counties Cavan, Donegal, Leitrim, Louth, Monaghan and Sligo. The allocation for Ireland from 1990 to 1993 is approximately £54 million. The programme covers five elements: tourism, agriculture/forestry/fisheries, human resource development, environmental protection and regional development. Many of these areas were mentioned by Deputy Bruton and there is already intense North-South activity.

The Government favour the continuation of this initiative and the Department of Finance are co-ordinating proposals to further develop and expand the programme.

Just last week the Government published in book form a series of studies bearing the title, Ireland in Europe — A Shared Challenge. The object of this publication was to stimulate further thought and examination of how economic co-operation on the island of Ireland could be further advanced in the context of an integrated Europe. The areas of actual and potential co-operation dealt with in this book include industry and trade, agriculture and natural resources and other matters. When launching this publication the Taoiseach said that the building of the European Union will help to strengthen the Community as a core of stability in Europe.

Very many eminent figures and representatives of the business communities, North and South, have, in recent times, signalled their recognition of the new opportunities. Amongst these I would cite the chairman of the Ulster Bank, Dr. George Quigley, who at the annual conference of the Confederation of Irish Industry on 28 February 1992, called for the creation of a Belfast-Dublin economic corridor. On that occasion, Dr. Quigley stated that he found no difficulty with the proposition that Ireland is — or should be — an island economy.

It is indeed very timely now, that the people of Ireland, and in particular the business communities and leaders should vigorously seek out ways to co-operate.

We have much in common, North and South. Sharing this island as we do, we are the only members of the European Community who do not have a land bridge to the centre of that market. From 1 January 1993, this immense market of 340 million people, with a combined purchasing power of over £3,000 billion, will be without barriers or restrictions to trade. We know that both parts are Objective I regions. Both parts share common problems and common challenges and can act in tandem with one another thus deriving much benefit.

As Minister responsible for trade and marketing I have been deeply encouraged to see the very real and growing co-operation in recent times between the Chambers of Commerce, North and South, the Confederation of Irish Industry and the Confederation of British Industry and between the economic development agencies North and South.

The Single Market will dismantle the customs border and give Irish firms on both sides an opportunity to increase the volume of business.

During the intergovernmental talks in March of this year the Minister for Industry and Commerce and I met the then Northern Minister for the Economy, Mr. Richard Needham, MP, to discuss North-South co-operation and the Single Market. The conference reviewed joint initiatives and made plans for further initiatives.

The programme of work is now well underway and, indeed, it is in the interests of both sides to develop and strengthen these links. As a follow on, I visited the North and I look forward to a reciprocal visit from my Northern counterpart in the autumn, to discuss ideas in relation to joint trade promotion programmes for companies North and South. Since 1987 when Fianna Fáil came into Government either single or in conjunction with another party, all the Ministers, Ministers of State and Deputies have, within our areas of responsibility, moved freely North and South and have received great co-operation from the public service. I say this because there was an implication in what Deputy Bruton said that the public service were not keen on the idea of economic co-operation or any other kind of co-operation. I should say clearly that the public servants North and South seem imbued with the highest ideals in carrying out the wishes and the stated objectives of the Government in office.

Separate to the untapped opportunities for business development there is, of course, a much greater opportunity and challenge in the larger Single European Market and in the new European economic area agreed between the EC and EFTA.

All this forms the basis of the newly agreed agenda for economic co-operation between Ministers responsible for trade and industry development, North and South. We know that our firms must develop the capacity to penetrate overseas markets. We know that this will require enhanced resources, better product research, better design and the achievement of EC product standards at the earliest possible date. We know that it makes sound economic and business sense to do so. Much complementary work is in progress between the research bodies, North and South, and between third level colleges, North and South.

I would like now to situate my remarks with some practical examples of the growing co-operation in trade development. In 1991, North-South trade amounted to £1.3 billion with a £300 million surplus in favour of the South. Northern Ireland takes 5.3 per cent of our exports and 4 per cent of our imports come from there.

The respective trade boards, An Bord Tráchtála in the South, and the Industrial Development Board in the North are aware of the need to aggressively defend and build their market positions against external competition and have recently executed a range of joint projects many of which have been assisted by the International Fund for Ireland. These include the development of a joint North/South Public Procurement Guide; a joint promotion in the US to encourage retailers to stock products from Northern Ireland and Southern Irish manufacturers; co-operation between the Galway and Derry Chambers of Commerce, and in August next 60 companies from the island will be featured in an Ireland exhibition in the Liberty of London Retail Promotion.

The most ambitious North-South initiative in relation to trade development was recently launched jointly by myself and the newly appointed Northern Minister for the Economy, Mr. Robert Atkins, MP, in Belfast on 30 April last. This initiative features a series of five subcontract exhibitions — the objective of which is to increase the level of domestic purchasing by industry in Ireland North and South.

These exhibitions involve the display, at each of five venues, Belfast — which we launched jointly — Galway, Derry, Waterford and Dublin. The exhibition features a demonstration of components currently being imported into Ireland by more than 100 manufacturers. The exhibition serves two functions, on the one hand it allows potential local suppliers to view components which they may be able to supply and so displace imports: on the other hand it allows larger manufacturing companies on this island who currently source materials from abroad to view the quality of the components produced by sub suppliers on this island with whom they may not yet have done business.

I found that exhibition which we launched jointly on 30 April in Belfast to be enormously beneficial in many ways, not only in the economic and financial arenas but in the very obvious enthusiasm with which contractors, sub contractors and suppliers greeted and dealt with one another. Over the two days of the exhibition firm business liaisons were formed and also firm friendships were formed involving social and economic activity between the people who manned the booths in each of the various components. I have met informally some of those who were present. They spoke of how much they had developed their own thinking not only in economic terms but also in a social and personal way about North-South relationships. All sorts of things result from matters such as this. It is not simply the activity on hand on that day or the following day but rather the human relationships which build up on such occasions.

These examples of economic co-operation illustrate that there is indeed much ground for progress in matters of economic interest. On the broader question of the commonality of interests between North and South and between Ireland and Britain, I am tempted to quote from a speech by Eamon de Valera to Seanad Éireann on 7 February 1939, almost two decades before the Treaty of Rome was signed, and over 30 years before Ireland and the United Kingdom joined that Community. He said:

Our situation is that we are two islands off the Continent. Our very geographical position suggests that there are relations which we have closer to each other than we have with other countries. The history between the two countries, although it has not been a happy one, has undoubtedly begotten certain relations which make it possible for us to have closer contacts than we would have with other people ...

Since that time, the map of Europe has changed dramatically and new institutions have opened up new opportunities. If we could focus on the opportunities and challenges which the progress of Community institutions open up to us, we would, I believe, find much common cause. By working together to resolve common difficulties, is it too much to expect that old barriers may be broken and trust created not only in business spheres but in political spheres also?

In the light of the existing Government approach we are asking this House to support the amendment from the Government supporting our policy on cooperating with the Northern Ireland authorities in the planning process for the post-1993 Structural Funds.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am calling Deputy Spring.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I said I was sharing my time with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sorry, I was not present. I understand that the remaining 11 minutes——

Mrs. O'Rourke

I announced it to the House.

Mr. Currie

I can vouch for that.

Mr. Spring

On a personal basis I always give way to senior counsel.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Andrews)

That is very kind of junior counsel and it is much appreciated. He will get two-thirds as usual. I am happy to avail of the opportunity of this motion to speak on the general question of North-South economic relations and the stepping up of cross-Border economic co-operation across the various areas.

Arising from the efforts of the Government, and their Departments and agencies on the one hand, and private sector interests on the other there is now a very evident growth and momentum in the development of cross-Border economic co-operation as the Minister of State at the Department of Industry and Commerce, Deputy O'Rourke, said. The impetus for such increased co-operation arises in no small way from an appreciation by industry and trade interests on both sides of the Border of the benefits and, indeed, the necessity of intensifying such co-operation in the Single European Market context. The debate is appropriately being conducted on the further practical cross-Border economic linkages which must be undertaken if our enterprises are to reap the benefits and adequately meet the challenges which the completion of the Single Market will bring. A common approach at Community level is essential if our firms are to survive and flourish in the new situation.

The Government are fully supportive of this growing awareness within industry of the advantages to be derived from greater co-operation at the sectoral and sub-sectoral levels. Indeed, I would submit that the Government can justly lay claim to a leading role in this overall process through their actions, jointly with the British Government, to promote economic co-operation within the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference.

The remit of the conference in the economic area has been considerably widened in the last two years. In this period there have been detailed discussions in the conference, with the participation in each case of the responsible Ministers, North and South, in the sectoral areas of tourism, transport, energy, environment, health, agriculture, and education. Most recently, at the 6 March conference, at which I was present, we discussed the matter of North-South trade and the implications of the Single European Market for the whole island. Deputy O'Rourke's participation at that conference was much appreciated and accepted as being very important.

I would like to emphasise that the economic discussions within the conference are very much action-oriented, directed at putting measures and arrangements in place which will work to the mutual benefit of North and South. The preparation of the joint INTERREG programme, for instance, was the subject of detailed exchanges within the conference framework. More recently, the conference served as an important forum for advancing co-operation in the field of gas inter-connection, culminating in the welcome extended by the March conference to the decision by British Gas to join with Bord Gáis Éireann in a pipeline which will link Scotland with both parts of Ireland. The same was true of the discussions on the project to upgrade the Dublin-Belfast rail link, leading to the announcement, at the 27 April conference, of the decision by the two Governments to proceed with the project.

In respect of the structures, the March conference put arrangements in place for officials to carry forward the work of promoting North-South trade and business co-operation generally. As another example, I would mention that the conference last September established a steering committee on cross-Border rural development to deepen co-operation in this area of particular importance for the two economies.

The conference set the agenda for the carrying forward of co-operation at the level of Government and the official agencies. Beyond this, the co-operation being advanced through the conference framework serves, I would suggest, to provide the necessary climate and underlying support for the growing co-operation being undertaken by the private sector and individual agencies and organisations. In this respect I would like to note in particular the important contributions to North-South co-operation being made by the International Fund for Ireland, the joint North-South initiative of the CII/CBI (Northern Ireland), and the work of other professional and voluntary organisations.

What has already been achieved in deepening economic co-operation on a North-South basis, whether at official level or otherwise, remains, however, unacceptably small. The vast potential which exists to expand co-operation across the various areas and sectors remains substantially untapped. As a contribution to correcting this situation the Taoiseach last week published an indepth study —"Ireland in Europe: A Shared Challenge"— on the prospects for closer North-South economic co-operation against the background of the European Single Market. The study — the preparation of which was co-ordinated by the Department of Foreign Affairs — contains a wide range of proposals and recommendations for joint action by the two parts of Ireland in preparing for the challenges and opportunities facing us in the new Europe.

The Taoiseach, in launching the study, indicated that he hoped that the wealth of detailed recommendations which it contains will serve as a focus for debate and analysis among policy-makers and public alike in the months ahead. He also stressed to Ministers and Departments the need to look seriously at the recommendations in the report, and he took the opportunity of making a similar plea to business and to people everywhere in Ireland.

The House will be aware that, to facilitate the resumption of the political talks, it was agreed that there will be no further meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference before the week beginning 27 July 1992. When the conference next meets, I would propose to raise with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Sir Patrick Mayhew, the joint arrangements which might be put in place to take matters forward, on the basis of the findings and recommendations contained in the study, in relation to a significant deepening of North-South economic relations. In this context I would also hope to explore with him the ways in which the relevant existing co-operative mechanisms and channels might be reinforced to sustain the new co-operative relationship which I would wish to see come into being. The overall objective, within the framework of a more comprehensive approach to economic relations on this island, would be to develop a partnership arrangement between North and South, including in the European context in line with the spirit of the present motion.

The study to which I have referred, a copy of which has been sent to the British Government, should offer a fruitful starting point from which to conduct an in-depth analysis of how North-South economic co-operation might be enhanced.

I wish to assure the House that, through the framework of the Anglo-Irish Conference and, indeed, through all other means available, I propose to take every opportunity to strengthen the co-operative approach between North and South, including in the European context. Given the many shared features and interests of our two economies, it is compellingly clear that it would be to our mutual advantage to pursue joint approaches wherever possible in relation to the development, across the relevant sectoral areas, of Community policies aimed at enabling us to "catch up" with the more favoured regions of the Community. The need, moreover, to develop the cross-Border linkages I referred to earlier is all the more necessary if our enterprises are to compete effectively in the completed Single Market.

Mr. Spring

First, let me say that I am glad to follow a positive contribution from the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It is unfortunate in the context of the motion that we could not agree on some unity between the parties in this House in view of such a positive contribution. The Labour Party will be supporting this motion. It is calling basically for a joint approach between Northern Ireland and ourselves in relation to the whole issue of European support for the economy of this island and especially in the context of the Structural Funds which are so much under discussion at present.

It is perhaps timely that we had an opportunity to have a debate in the House on the economic focus in relation to Northern Ireland. In past years, particularly in the wake of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, there has been a high level of consensus in the House and thus there has been little debate in some respects because we are all very concerned to ensure that, whatever possibilities and opportunities exist between the parties in Northern Ireland and in keeping with the harmonious relations between the Governments in Dublin and London, the politicians in Ireland be allowed all the scope possible. We have not had the opportunity in this House of having what I would call a fully fledged debate although many questions, including Private Notice Questions, have been raised in relation to specific issues as they arise. I compliment the Fine Gael Party on putting down this motion. As I said at the outset, it is unfortunate that we could not, if there was time for negotiations, have ended up with the kind of consensus achieved between party leaders this morning on the immediate issue of the debate on the Maastricht Treaty.

This motion presents us with an opportunity to open and widen the debate about our relations with the North of Ireland. That might involve taking a fresh look at our own attitudes and at ourselves. Surely in the middle of the debate on our relationship with Europe that is taking place in the country, perhaps not with the speed or gusto that some of us would desire, it is timely to focus on the relationships of both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland with the European Community. I welcome that opportunity.

Everybody in the House, and everybody on the island, is well aware that the four party leaders in the North of Ireland have been involved for several months in a historic effort to resolve differences among themselves, to bring a measure of agreement among the communities that they represent and to begin again to build bridges between the communities that have been battered over the years.

I think nobody would attempt to under-estimate the difficulties under which the negotiations are taking place. The negotiations are extremely difficult and complex — perhaps the most difficult and the most complex of negotiations ever undertaken on this island. The history of past efforts of party leaders in Northern Ireland to find common ground with one another is one of singular failure and unfortunately their attempts have been littered with failures. On this occasion it is already clear that there is more dividing the parties, unfortunately, than uniting them.

The burden of history is an extremely heavy one for the leaders in Northern Ireland to carry but they do have a number of things in common. First, the Unionist detestation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement is complemented by a general willingness on the part of nearly everybody else on the island of Ireland to see that agreement transcended by something that will bring the hope of peace. Secondly, all the parties involved share a commitment to a democratic means of progress and absolutely reject violence as a means to solving the difficulties in Northern Ireland. Thirdly, there is a very substantial commitment to the need to rebuild the economy of Northern Ireland and to enable that unfortunate part of the world to get its full share of the benefits of an integrated Europe. Finally, there is a sense of urgency, which is increasing daily, particularly against the background of a rising spate of brutal killings. The only way to stop those killings is to replace violence with the hope of a new future for a divided and embittered community. In this connection, the revelation on a recent BBC television programme of the involvement of British army agents in a spate of assissinations and attempted assassinations represents a most sinister development that will, sadly, form part of the background of distrust and tension between the parties in Northern Ireland as they attempt to get the talks under way.

Because of the background, it is inevitable that the negotiations now under way will touch on issues that have not occurred to any of us, especially when the negotiations reach their substantive phases. It is clear that the first issue will have to be the way in which Northern Ireland is governed in the future. In that context, there is already agreement at the level of the two Governments involved that any method of government that attracts a wide measure of cross-community support will be acceptable in both London and Dublin. To say that is not to under-estimate the difficulty of finding a new form of government for Northern Ireland. The second area of negotiation will have to concern the relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. In this context, one of the key issues from the Unionist perspective would be the claim in our Constitution on the territory of Northern Ireland, which has been described by our Supreme Court as a legal imperative. Most people in Ireland, I believe, want the Irish Government to take an open and generous stance in relation to the question of Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution.

The end result of all our efforts should be a closer and more harmonious relationship between North and South, keeping open the prospect of moving ever closer in the future. That, in my opinion, should at least be the aim of the parties in these discussions and of the Governments waiting in the wings to participate in the dialogue. I assume that both Governments are willing to participate in any and all proposals that come forward in relation to the reconstruction of the Northern economy. It is already apparent, for example, that the North has not done nearly as well as the Republic in obtaining access to the European Structural Funds. A common approach by both Governments, backed up by the strong support of all parties in the North of Ireland, would be critically important in turning European goodwill into concrete support for a new deal for the people of Northern Ireland. I believe that the majority of people in Northern Ireland would welcome that kind of concrete support precisely because the majority want peace and progress. They are sick and tired of the road blocks that are being put in the way of meaningful dialogue. They are tired, too, of all of the hypocricy of those who talk about the community as if they cared but spend their time planting bombs and causing untold damage to the population and the economy of Northern Ireland.

We all run the risk of putting up similar road blocks. Sometimes with the best will in the world we fall into the trap of old attitudes, old ways of thinking and old ways of expressing ourselves, and that is as true of those of us who have regarded ourselves as Nationalists as it is of those we condemn as intransigent Unionists. That is why I have tried, with some temerity, to introduce a new concept that I have described elsewhere as "nationism". James Connolly defined nationism without using the word when he said, "Ireland without her people means nothing to me". The essence of nationism, therefore, is that we cannot build a nation if we forget the people who go to make up that nation. To talk about nationism is to redefine and clarify our traditional concept of nationalism, to think of the nation more in terms of people and the communities to which they belong and less in terms of a conflict about territories. Any discussion about nationism would start from the point of citizenship and would progress to the rights of the individual. It would concern itself with progress and with the border that exists in hearts and minds rather than the physical border that exists across this island. It would be a process more of giving than taking, more aimed at bringing people together for common purposes rather than using fear and hatred to drive them apart. Above all, the underpinning of "nationism" would be that the nation itself consists of its people.

We should never allow ourselves to forget that the Provisionals, and other paramilitaries, regard people as expendable, only territory is sacrosanct; there is no other explanation for the callous way in which terrorists can inflict so much pain on people. No "nationist" would ever find it acceptable to blow people up or to arbitrarily deprive them of their livelihoods as some so-called Nationalists find it so easy to achieve. By the same token, an economic "nationist" would go much further than a joint approach to Structural Funds. Why not an all-Ireland IDA, for example? Why not an all-Ireland ESRI? Why not an all-Ireland approach to promoting foreign trade and to marketing? It has often struck me, when abroad trying to market this country — and to assist in marketing it — that it is ridiculous to have agencies from the South and North trying to put a better gloss on the industrial site in Portadown as opposed to the industrial sites of Munster, for example. I would have thought it would be to our mutual benefit to attract investment to this island, North and South, rather than competing at the expense of the taxpayers in both parts of the island. I hope that will be looked at in the context of discussions taking place between the Governments in Dublin and London.

Needless to say, the "nationists" need to explore these questions across the range of Irish life. They could consider an all-Ireland theatre company, a national library which is truly national, a national curriculum and a national soccer team — which has been mooted on many occasions but which has never been achieved; they might even consider a national flag. From symbols to sport, from culture to foreign trade, from research to politics, there is no aspect of life on this island which would not benefit from asking what I call "nationist" questions and the development of "nationist" ideas. In this context tourism comes very much to the fore. How can we in the South sell the North until we are prepared to look to the North as somewhere which we want to visit? It was Swift who said that the real patriot is a person who can make two ears of corn grow where one has grown previously. With the kind of co-operation we have been debating in this motion the ears of corn can be made to multiply until they, in turn, make a real contribution to peace and understanding.

The principle underpinning this motion and debate is the idea that developing the island economy would produce an entity that would be greater than the sum of its parts. I suspect it is impossible to argue against that proposition and I would have thought that, if the Government had given some consideration to this — disregarding the fact that it was tabled by an Opposition party — they could have found an accommodation which would have been acceptable to all sides of the House. It is regrettable that we will, at 8.30 p.m. tomorrow, divide on an issue on which there has been strong consensus and co-operation with the Government since 1987. In response, the Government have been extremely responsible and the former and present Taoisigh in relation to Northern Ireland would wish at all times to have consensus because, as I have often said in public, I do not think we can attempt to negotiate, dictate, discuss and to enter dialogue with our fellow countrymen in Northern Ireland until we have a clear picture of what exactly we want to achieve on this island. Therefore, the division which will take place tomorrow evening is retrograde in that respect.

According to a recent survey two companies out of every three who sell from Northern Ireland to the Republic have never undertaken market research here or appointed agents or representatives in the South. They do not have a branch, plant or office in the Republic. More than half the companies in Northern Ireland have never sold any of their products to the Irish public sector. I suspect that, if a similar survey was conducted in the Republic, the picture would be similar. In fact I am sure there are companies in the Republic which have spent far more money in developing the market in Germany, France and other countries in Europe than they ever considered spending in Northern Ireland. One must ask why we have not focused on our nearest market. Apart from the odd delay which one might encounter in getting there, it is so accessible compared to the difficulties we have in reaching other markets, one must ask if our thinking has been so clouded that we automatically look to Europe instead of to a market on our own doorstep.

Denmark, for example, which has been so much in the news in this House and in homes all over the country — perhaps more so than ever before, and which we know has a similar population to ours — achieves sales per capita on its home market that are twice as high as those achieved by the combined efforts of the North and South. That should make commercial people focus on why they are able to do that when we are busily trying to find markets around the world and have not applied our energies and our capabilities to the market of the North. The same applies to the North vis-á-vis the South. It is obvious that we desperately need to boost economic growth on this island, that we need greater home sales and rates of growth which are well in excess of the European average if we are to make sustained inroads on the unemployment crisis.

It is accepted that the prosperity of this island is totally dependent on our capacity to export our goods and services. It is, therefore, necessary to stress that when we talk about the notion of developing this island economy we are not talking about some kind of defensive alliance to repel external borders, we are talking about economic co-operation which must serve two purposes. It should safeguard and enhance the penetration of the home market and enhance the capacity of industry to compete in export markets. We need to look at particular sectors where potential within the island, through concerted effort, is greater than the sum of the potential in either part pursued separately.

As I said, tourism is a very obvious example, it would make good sense, given current difficulties to market the northern part of this island, for example, including Donegal and the other Border counties as an entity. We must examine this matter. There are other examples where co-operation would produce significant results, the Minister for Energy said that progress is now being made after a setback in the mid-eighties in terms of gas facilities. Transport, agri-business, food and the manufacture and marketing of products on an all Ireland basis have the potential to give rise to economies of scale which neither part of the island can achieve on its own. These are some areas where I believe there is scope for expansion. However, at this stage we have not even focused on the opportunities which exist for better co-operation between both parts of this island. Perhaps we could take some of the pressure off ourselves, in the context of the European debate and the difficulties facing working people North and South, if we addressed the economic areas where there are benefits to be gained by both communities.

Debate adjourned.